According to the Daily Hornet in an article dated May 31, 2017, plaintiff William L. has filed one of many lawsuits against Cook Medical because of vena cava filter problems associated with the company’s Gunther Tulip Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter.

The Gunther Tulip model now has a successor, the Celect model which has also been linked to similar vena cava filter problems.

In the May 31 article, it states that there are about 2,000 Gunther Tulip IVC lawsuits against Cook Medical pending in the U.S. currently.

William L., a Kentucky resident, filed his complaint against the company in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division .

Further complaints against this medical device and its developers and marketers will be organized under multidistrict legislation (MDL) here as well. The multidistrict litigation is known as MDL 2570.

What are the Vena Cava Filter Problems?

The inferior vena cava is the main vein that returns deoxygenated blood to the heart and lungs from the lower extremities of the body to the heart and lungs.

An IVC filter is placed in the vein and resembled something like a partially expanded umbrella. It serves to strain blood clots out of the circulatory system before they reach the cardiac and pulmonary regions.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning against IVC filters.

The FDA highlighted vena cava filter problems such as perforation of the vein wall, migration of the device within the body, fracture of the device leading to embolization (parts of the filter act like a moving blood clot), and deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

Deep vein thrombosis is a blood clot that is blocking the flow of blood to a region. This can cause tissue death and is one of the reasons an IVC filter is implanted in the first place.

Gunther Tulip Vena Cava Filter Problems

Cook Medical marketed the Gunther Tulip IVC filter as a medical device that potentially could remain in the body permanently. They also marketed the product as easily retrievable.

According to an article by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, the longer the Gunther Tulip IVC filter device remains in the body, the greater the incidence of vena cava perforation statistically.

Because perforation can be a very serious event, the article recommended the earliest possible retrieval date after implantation. In other words, the device should be removed as soon as the risk of DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE) have passed for the individual patient.

Among the list of Gunther Tulip vena cava filter problems affecting the ability of surgeons to remove the device was tilt. Often the device was found tilted within the IVC, reducing its effectiveness and producing the type of conditions that could lead to vein perforation.

According to another article on the same website, there are two methods of implanting the IVC filter. It can be implanted via the jugular vein in the neck or the femoral vein in the leg. Less tilt and better retrieval success are associated with the jugular insertion, but many surgeons still opt for the femoral approach.

If you feel you have experienced pain and suffering because of the failure of an implanted Gunther Tulip IVC filter, you may be entitled to compensation. A consultation with a knowledgeable lawyer can apprise you of your rights and options.